> Whoops, now you're talking about dictating the recording industry's business model back to it, because you don't like the one they chose. We dictate business

> Whoops, now you're talking about dictating the recording industry's business model back to it, because you don't like the one they chose. We dictate business models in much the same way in other cases where a particular business model explicitly relies upon violations of individual rights -- such as telling people they shouldn't pursue a business model of armed robbery. > If that's your argument, why are you tilting at windmills? Why aren't you instead writing a blog post advocating that musicians ditch the recording industry? I've done that too. I like to write something new, and non-repetitive, from time to time. Do you just regurgitate saved copies of your old material all the time? You're right -- that would be boring. > Is it unethical to disobey the law? All else being equal, there's nothing about the law itself that makes it unethical to disobey. There are some laws it's unethical to disobey; there are others it is not. There are cases where disobeying a law would be unethical even if the law itself is unethical, but those cases are not defined merely by the fact it's a law. Feel free to dispute that, but you should do something more impressive than offer a circular argument (which is the form most "but it's the law!" arguments take). > The argument I responded to, which you've now jumped into the middle of Jesus fucking Christ. This is a public discussion venue. I am sick and tired of people coming up with the "Why are you interrupting my discussion?" excuse to dismiss comments in public discussion venues. Try actually addressing points made rather than inventing spurious excuses to shut people up when you disagree with them. > the idea that because copyvio is rampant, the law must be wrong That's not the argument that was advanced. The argument is that a bad law predisposes people to disregard even the good purpose of the law (assuming it has any good purposes), and may even predispose them to disregard other laws in general. There's nothing in that argument that reverses the causal relationship between behavior and the ethicality of a law the way you just did. You're right that violation of a law doesn't make it a bad law in an ethical sense (though it might make it "bad" in an enforceability sense, depending on how it gets violated). That's not the obvious interpretation of preceding statements on the subject, though -- at least as far as I've been able to determine.